# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1969_S81
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL MATTERS $1

We extend this plea on the basis of our church's un-
mistakable confession:

We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writ-

ings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear

fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according
to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged and

evaluated. (Tappert, p.503:3; Trigl., p. 851:3)

Showing how it applies Scriptural authority against
false teachers and teachings, our church, after specifi-
cally citing Matt. 7:15; Titus 3:10; and 2 Cor. 6:14,
solemnly declares:

It is a grave thing to want to be separate from so many

lands and people and to maintain a distinct doctrine [the

Latin text has: to dissent from the consensus of so many

peoples and to be called schismatics]. But here stands

God’s mandate, that evervone is to beware and not to be

one with those who teach false doctrine or cruelly try to

defend it. (Treatise Concerning the Power and Primacy
of the Pope: 42. Trigl., p.516; Tappert, p. 328. Emphasis
added.)

In view of the present distressing situation within
our church, we insistently pray the Missouri Synod
clearly to reaffirm its adherence to the above undeniably
Scriptural, Confessional principles of fellowship and
speedily restore their practice throughout its member-
ship, and particularly in all of its own structural offices
and institutions.

St. Joun’s Ev, LUTHERAN CHURCH
Clinton, Iowa

Ben MEYERMANN, Chairman

CLIFFORD LAHANN, Recording Secretary

(2-31)
To Clarify an Apparent Conflict
Regarding the Public Doctrine of the Church

Whereas, The occasion for this overture arises from
the action of the Board of Control of the St. Louis semi-
nary in granting tenure to Dr. Norman Habel although
it had been called to their attention that the positions
set forth in his essay ‘““The Form and Meaning of the Fall
Narrative’ were not accepted when he presented the
essay to the Southern California District Pastoral Con-
ference in October 1965; and

Whereas, The differences between the Southern Cal-
ifornia District and the St. Louis Board of Control do
not deal with the hermeneutical principles involved in
the essay but rather with the positions and conclusions
in the essay; and

Wuereas, The Board of Control apparently condones
positions in the essay that are in conflict with the public
doctrine of the Synod and the Confessions: for example,
the essay holds that Adam and Eve may not have been
real historical people but may have been playing a role
in some “symbolic religious history” (p.9 of essay,
CSPS, 1965) while the Synod and the Confessions hold
that they were real historical human beings: cf. Res.
2-31 of the New York convention: “Whereas the Scrip-
tures teach and the Lutheran Confessions affirm that
Adam and Eve were real. historical human beings. the
first two people on earth.” and the Book of Concord
refers to Adam and Eve as real people (Tappert, Smal-

cald Articles, Part III. Art. VIII p. 312.5: p.313.9;
Apology of AC, Article XII, p. 189.53; p. 189.55: p. 209.55;
Article IT, p. 100.2): and

WHEREAS. Correspondence between our Board of
Directors and the Board of Control has been incon-
clusive though helpful. cordial, and fraternal; and

WHEREAS. Apparently we now have a board of the
Synod holding a position that is in seeming conflict with
a previously stated position of the Synod in the Southern
California District: therefore be it

Resolved, That we ask the Synod in its Denver con-
vention to clarify the following:

1. Is there a conflict when the Synod in convention
holds that “the Scriptures teach and the Lutheran Con-
fessions affirm that Adam and Eve were real, historical
human beings, the first two people on earth” (Res. 2-31,
New York, 1967, Proceedings, p. 95). and when a Board
of Control upholds the position of a professor who says
that Adam and Eve may not have been real, historical
people but may have been playing a role in some “sym-
bolic religious history”? (“The Form and Meaning of
the Fall Narrative.” p. 9)

2. Is it the responsibility of a Board of Control to
require. or not to require, of its faculty members that
they conform to the public doctrines of the Synod as
when in Res. 2-31 of the New York convention (1967,
Proceedings, p.95) a public doctrine is based upon the

Confessions? Boarp or DirREcTORS
SouTHERN CALIFoRNIA DISTRICT
EucENnE QO, Situ, Secretary
(2-32)

To Cease Prayer Fellowship
with Those Not in Church Fellowship

Wuereas, Church fellowship comprises not only
pulpit and altar fellowship but also prayer fellowship;
and

Wuereas, Church fellowship is not to be arbitrarily
divided, so that a church can have altar fellowship with
another church without pulpit fellowship or vice versa;
and

Wuereas. The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod
has been practicing prayer fellowship with other church
bodies as though it were something separate from the
total fellowship: and

Wuereas, This is not only wrong in itself but has of-
fended those with whom we were in fellowship in the
Synodical Conference, resulting in the dissolution of the
Conference and our loss of fellowship with the Wiscon-
sin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; therefore be it

Resolved, That prayer fellowship cease on the part
of Missouri Synod representatives in ecumenical dialogs,
cooperative agencies, and all situations in which there
is contact with those not in declared church fellowship
with The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod.

Rev. C. L. RHoApDES
Chicago, Tl.